Gay marriage, what do you think?

[Tero]

Why the fuck can't the judges just read the consitutional amendments?

14
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education and Reed v. Reed (1971), where the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated this clause.

[Coito ergo sum]

Why the fuck can't the judges just read the consitutional amendments?

14
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education and Reed v. Reed (1971), where the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated this clause.

I guess the question is whether a law prohibiting marriage between a man and a man and a woman and a woman is not providing equal protection. It's not really all that clear that it is. It depends on one's interpretation.

[rainbow]

What protection does marriage give anyway?

[Tero]

In the US spouses have powers to make decisions on behalf of incapacitated people. Taxation is unequal for married vs single. Inheritance tax is different for spouse compared to other relations and heirs.

[Kristie]

In the US spouses have powers to make decisions on behalf of incapacitated people. Taxation is unequal for married vs single. Inheritance tax is different for spouse compared to other relations and heirs.

Don't forget health insurance!

[rainbow]

Then it is discrimination against single people, not only gays.

[Tero]

Not so. Single heteros are allowed to marry as a tax loophole. They only have to have sex once, or perhaps never. You can't prevent impotent men from marrying.

[rainbow]

Why should anyone be forced to get into a relationship simply to gain a tax advantage?
BTW gay people could get married (but not to each other) in the same way to take advantage of such a loophole.

[Tero]

It's love. They have no kids most of the time, so they want an heir and friend at their death bed.

Marrying without cohabitation is impractical. You would need two gays and two lesbians "married" in a house.

[Coito ergo sum]

In the US spouses have powers to make decisions on behalf of incapacitated people. Taxation is unequal for married vs single. Inheritance tax is different for spouse compared to other relations and heirs.

Sure, equal protection doesn't prohibit different things and different issues from being treated differently. Equal protection requires that distinctions have a rational basis, meaning it has to be reasonably related to a legitimate governmental inere. And, with issues like distinctions based on sex - the distinction has to be substantially related to an important government interest. So, tax treatment distinctions between married couples and single people just have to be reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest -- which is almost any rationale that doesn't make one bust out laughing.

[Coito ergo sum]

doop

[Sean Hayden]

It should have been accepted from the start.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In the US spouses have powers to make decisions on behalf of incapacitated people. Taxation is unequal for married vs single. Inheritance tax is different for spouse compared to other relations and heirs.

And a spouse can't be forced to testify against the other spouse. They can testify for them, but once they're on the stand things can go pear-shaped quickly, of course.

Also, there's no challenge to the estate if one spouse dies, in most cases.

[Coito ergo sum]

It should have been accepted from the start.

Some of the young folks, in their 20s, won't have a memory of this -- but, gay marriage was universally unlawful as little as 10 or 15 years ago. I mean, the very first legalizations of gay marriage I think was in this century. after a quick googles - yes, indeed "The first laws in modern times recognizing same-sex marriage were enacted during the first decade of the 21st century. As of March 2013, eleven countries (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden), and several sub-national jurisdictions (parts of Brazil, Mexico, and the United States), allow same-sex couples to marry." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

So, we have about 192 countries, give or take, in the world today, 11 have legalized it nationally, and 3 have legalized it in certain states.

When I was in my 20s, the idea would have been considered laughable.

We've come a long way, and I don't think the US has anything to apologize for. We are among the 14 countries in the lead on this, although of course it is still a contested issue. This issue, however, has seen the most radical shift in the shortest time frame in terms of public opinion that I think I've seen in my lifetime. In just over a decade, we've seen a sea change in public opinion.

[Tyrannical]

Why the fuck can't the judges just read the consitutional amendments?

Exactly!

Did the people that passed those amendments intend to give gay's the right to marry? No, the people that passed those amendments thought homosexuality was a criminal offense. When they wanted to give Blacks the right to vote, they passed a constitutional amendment requiring it. Gays need to take the same path.